lable at ScienceDirectComputers in Human Behavior 81 (2018

lable at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 378e389
Contents lists avai
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Full length article
Learning through play: The impact of web-based games on early
literacy development
Kelly L. Schmitt a, *, Lisa B. Hurwitz b, Laura Sheridan Duel
a,
Deborah L. Nichols Linebarger c, 1
a KL Media Research, 2457 N. Halsted St., Chicago, IL 60614,
USA
b Center on Media and Human Development, School of
Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
c Annenberg School for Communication, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 September 2017
Received in revised form
29 November 2017
Accepted 22 December 2017
Available online 26 December 2017
* Corresponding author. Current Address: Psychol
versity Graduate School, Fort Lauderdale, FL and KL Me

E-mail addresses: [email protected][email protected] (D.L.
Nichols Linebarger)
1 Current Address: Deborah L. Nichols Linebarger is
and Family Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.036
0747-5632/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
Education practitioners and policy-makers are enthusiastic
about web-based games’ potential to pro-
mote reading and pre-reading skills, although it is unclear how
effective these games are, especially for
children in early childhood. The aim of this study was to
determine if literacy games on an educational
website could effectively promote early literacy. 136
preschoolers and kindergarteners were randomly
assigned to play literacy-focused (intervention group), or
puzzle- and arts-themed computer games
(control) for 8 weeks at home. Children’s early literacy skills
were evaluated pre- and post-intervention
via 12 literacy assessments. Children in the intervention group
outperformed control group peers on
eight of these outcomes. Learning was most pronounced for
alliteration and phonics, which are
important early predictors of later reading abilities.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
For the past three decades, experts have debated whether
computers can support early literacy learning (McCarrick & Li,
2007; Plowman & Stephen, 2003). Seeing promise in
educational
game-based websites that potentially could widely disseminate

lessons about literacy in engaging ways, scholars and content
producers around the globe in countries such as Australia (e.g.,
Wolgemuth et al., 2013), Canada (e.g., Savage, Abrami, Hipps,
&
Deault, 2009; Savage et al., 2013), Finland (e.g., Saine,
Lerkkanen,
Ahonen, Tolvanen, & Lyytinen, 2011), France (e.g., Magnan &
Ecalle, 2006), Israel (e.g., Mioduser, Tur-Kaspa, & Leitner,
2000),
Italy (e.g., Giacomo Dina et al., 2016), and the Netherlands
(e.g.,
Segers & Verhoeven, 2003, 2005) created educational, literacy-
themed computer games and websites for young children. In the
U.S. where the present data were collected, the federal
government
has funded numerous initiatives aiming to utilize websites and
ogy Department, Keiser Uni-
dia Research, Chicago, IL USA
ern.edu (L.B. Hurwitz),
.
now at Human Development
, IN.
other technology for supporting academic development (e.g.,
U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology,
2010).
For example, the U.S. Ready To Learn (RTL) initiative provides
$25
million annually for commercial screen media, including
computer
games, websites, and other new media, intended to promote
early
literacy among both general and low-income populations
(Hurwitz,
in press).

Currently, the evidence is mixed as to whether educational
computer games and websites can successfully promote early
lit-
eracy (Torgerson, 2007), especially if played by young children
at
home outside of a school setting (Garrity, Piotrowski,
McMenamin,
& Linebarger, 2010). The present study is unique in the focus
on
early childhood and the use of a controlled experimental design
(Tobias, Fletcher, Dai, & Wind, 2011; Torgerson, 2007) to
determine
whether a website with a leveled series of literacy-themed
games
could promote early literacy when played at home.
1.1. Early literacy skills
Children who enter kindergarten without foundational early
literacy skills remain at risk for reading difficulties throughout
their
schooling (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007; Juel, 1988).
Expert
groups, including the National Reading Panel (2000) convened
by
the U.S. Congress have identified a number of foundational
early
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.chb.2017.12
.036&domain=pdf
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

K.L. Schmitt et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018)
378e389 379
literacy skills crucial to later literacy development; these skills
have
been promoted heavily in U.S. educational policy.
As young children begin to learn to read, they first develop
concepts of print or knowledge of print conventions (e.g., that
text in
English is read from left to right; Eunice Kennedy Shriver
National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD),
2010),
alphabetic knowledge or mastery of the names and printing of
up-
percase and then lowercase letters of the alphabet (Grant et al.,
2012; Drouin, Horner, & Sondergeld, 2012; NICHD, 2010;
Pence
Turnbull, Bowles, Skibbe, Justice, & Wiggins, 2010), and
phonemic
awareness or an understanding of language sounds, which is
demonstrated through sub-skills such as rhyming and
alliteration
(Grant et al., 2012; National Reading Panel, 2000; Wagner et
al.,
1997). Children's ability to provide the sound(s) associated with
each letter allows them to move on to more complex skills, such
as
phonics, or the ability to map letters and sounds, and spelling
(Foulin, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000). As children
master
these skills, they require fewer processing resources to name
letters

and sounds, which contributes to conventional reading success
(Burgess & Lonigan, 1988; Foulin, 2005). Over time, children
begin
to develop fluency or the ability to read accurately, quickly, and
expressively (National Reading Panel, 2000), and
comprehension
(National Reading Panel, 2000).
Unfortunately, these skills are often less developed among
lower-SES children than their same-age higher-SES peers
(Bradbury, Corak, Waldfogel, & Washbrook, 2015). All these
early
literacy skills are moderate to large predictors of conventio nal
lit-
eracy skills, including reading comprehension, spelling, and
writing, and have been demonstrated to be improved via inter -
vention (see NICHD, 2010; National Reading Panel, 2000).
Throughout childhood, the child also grows his/her vocabulary
(National Reading Panel, 2000). Vocabulary knowledge is
impor-
tant not only to the development of reading comprehension
(Beck,
McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986) but also to
general reading ability (Stanovich, Cunningham, & Feeman,
1984).
It may be particularly important to identify interventions that
support the vocabulary skills of children from low -income com-
munities, given the findings from Hart & Risley's (2003)
seminal
study indicating that low-income children hear one-half to one-
third fewer spoken words on a daily basis than children in more
affluent households.
1.2. Educational computer games supporting literacy
development

1.2.1. Concerns about learning from media
Critics have questioned whether it is the best use of children's
time to be using computers and other screen media (for reviews,
see McCarrick & Li, 2007; Plowman & Stephen, 2003).
Concerns
have centered around whether that time might displace the time
children have available to focus on reading, learning or other
developmentally enriching tasks (Neuman, 1995). Research with
older children found that computer use facilitated independent
reading time but inhibited study time and had mixed results on
children's academic achievement, partially substantiating time-
related concerns (Hofferth, 2010). Even if children only spend a
small amount of time on the computer, other concerned parties
worry that they might inadvertently be exposed to inappropriate
content, such as sexual or violent videos or advertisements
(Plowman & Stephen, 2003). Aligned with these concerns,
expert
groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and
National
Institute for Care and Health Excellence in the U.K. have
advocated
placing strict limitations on young children's screen time
(Blum-
Ross & Livingstone, 2016). Although educational software
exists
that is intended to ensure the time children spend on the
computer
is fruitful, critics further contend that preschool-age children
lack
the abstract and symbolic reasoning capabilities to learn from
in-
formation presented on a computer screen (McCarrick & Li,
2007).
However, in light of a nearly fifty-year history underscoring

that
children ages 3 and above can learn from well-designed,
curricu-
lum-based television (Fisch, 2004), it logically follows that pre-
schoolers might benefit from thoughtfully designed, literacy-
themed computer games.
1.2.2. Theoretical background supporting learning from media
Contrasting the critics above, several theories, including
frameworks by Fisch and Vygotsky, suggest that educational
com-
puter games and websites should be able to promote learning in
literacy and other areas.
Fisch's (2000; 2004; 2016) Capacity Model, a theoretical model
originally intended to explicate learning from television, also
has
been applied to interactive media. The Capacity Model suggests
that children have a limited amount of working memory
resources
that they can dedicate to screen media. As such, all features in a
computer game or other media stimulus should work in tandem
to
promote the same learning goals and should be designed in a
way
to avoid distracting children from these goals (Fisch, 2000;
2004;
2016). To that end, the Capacity Model predicts learning from
interactive media will be strongest when game mechanics
reinforce
learning goals (Fisch, 2016). For instance, a literacy-themed
com-
puter game ideally would require a child to physically click
com-
binations of letters to blend words, as opposed to only allowing

him/her to click frivolous hotspots unrelated to the game's
educa-
tional lessons (Guernsey & Levine, 2015). In a similar vein, the
model specifies that a computer game will inhibit learning if
gaming mechanics or sequences are unintuitive (Fisch, 2016). In
other words, if it is challenging to click hotspots or unclear
which
hotspots to click, the child will focus on these technical issues
at the
expense of attending to educational lessons e a problem Fisch
(2016) refers to as gameplay dominance.
The model further posits that children require a certain level of
fine motor skills and familiarity with the computer and
computer
games in general to be able to benefit from educational
computer
programs (Fisch, 2016). It is not until between the ages of 3 and
4
that most children first begin using a mouse and computer inde-
pendently (Calvert, Rideout, Woolard, Barr, & Strouse, 2005).
Therefore, children younger than 4 might struggle with
educational
computer games, but those ages 4 and above might be capable
of
benefiting. Because young children are still developing self-
regulation and executive function skills, a computer game
should
allow children to jump straight to gameplay or to learn the rules
of
the game as they play; children become frustrated sitting
through
long tutorials in which they cannot click the screen (Fisch,
2016).
Further, for the strongest possible learning, the Capacity Model

suggests that educational lessons should be repeated across mul -
tiple contexts (e.g., multiple games that all promote phonemic
awareness; Fisch, 2004). The Capacity Model also posits that
games
must be engaging, motivating, and playful, with the educational
components embedded in the play e a notion shared by many
other scholars, including some drawing from Vygotsky's
Sociocul-
tural tradition (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012; Plowman &
Stephen,
2003; Yelland & Masters, 2007). Beyond the media content
itself,
the Capacity Model also suggests that parents can help mediate
and
support children's learning from media (Fisch, 2004), yet
another
tenet aligned with Sociocultural theory, as described below.
Vygotsky's (1930e1934/1978) Sociocultural theory explains that
humans use culturally meaningful tools to facilitate learning,
problem-solving, and other sophisticated behaviors. Recently,
scholars have argued that computer games serve as such a tool
in
the present-day (e.g., Plowman, McPake, & Stephen, 2008).
Much
like a caring teacher or caregiver, educational computer games
can
378e389380
support children's education by guiding them through
increasingly
challenging learning experiences that extend their existing
knowledge, or, in Sociocultural terms, scaffold children through

their “zone of proximal development” (McCarrick & Li, 2007;
Wartella et al., 2016; Yelland & Masters, 2007). Ideally,
computer
games should begin the scaffolding process by presenting the
child
with content that is slightly more difficult than what he/she
could
do independently (Yelland & Masters, 2007) and become more
challenging or “level up” automatically (Grant et al., 2012;
McManis
& Gunnewig, 2012), as research suggests this makes games
more
enjoyable and encourages sustained play (Educational
Development Center & SRI International, 2012). Additionally,
the
computer program itself should provide corrective feedback,
hints,
and/or affective encouragement as additional means of
scaffolding
the child's performance (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012; Yelland
&
Masters, 2007). As a further means of scaffolding, it may be
necessary for the computer game to demonstrate or model ap-
proaches to solving problems if a child seems stuck or for the
program to allow the child to try to answer a question multiple
times if his/her first answer is incorrect (Yelland & Masters,
2007).
As the child becomes more competent at the skills targeted,
ideally
the game will decrease the level of scaffolding over time
(Yelland &
Masters, 2007).
Children have micro-interactions with computers within a
broader sociocultural context. By playing computer games
designed in the manner described above in a home environment,

children may receive explicit or discern implicit support from
their
caregivers that computers are an educational tool, which in turn
can further enhance learning (Plowman et al., 2008). At a still
higher level, a computer game can reinforce lessons children
receive from outside sources (Wartella et al., 2016). For
example, a
computer game that disseminates lessons about pre-literacy in a
manner aligned with national early learning standards may rein-
force lessons children may be receiving in preschool. When
made
publicly available as a form of mass media, a computer game
can
broadly disseminate similar lessons to many children across a
society.
Researchers at the Educational Development Center & SRI
International (2012), have proposed additional game
characteris-
tics that may facilitate learning, positing that interactive media
is
more engaging when it allows the child to accrue points and
ach-
ieve feelings of mastery (e.g., reaching the end of a leveled
game;
also see Ronimus & Lyyti nen, 2015). Furthermore, McManis
and
Gunnewig (2012) recommended that games targeting young
chil-
dren refrain from the extensive use of written or complex verbal
instructions and be simple enough that children can play
relatively
independently (also see Grant et al., 2012; Plowman et al.,
2008).
1.2.3. Extant game evaluations

Systematic reviews suggest that on average, literacy-themed
computer games and websites produced in the late ‘90's and
early 2000's only had small, arguably negligible effects on
literacy
development (Torgerson, 2007). Moreover, many prior
evaluations
relied on non-validated measures of learning (Hurwitz, in
press).
Nevertheless, recent individual evaluations of more modern
games
have demonstrated positive results using robust measures, at
least
for children in early elementary school (i.e., kindergarten e 2nd
grade). Prior research suggests such games can promote school -
age
children's alphabetic knowledge (e.g., Hintikka, Aro, &
Lyytinen,
2005), phonemic awareness (e.g., Segers & Verhoeven, 2005),
phonics (e.g., Saine et al., 2011; Savage et al., 2013),
vocabulary (e.g.,
Segers & Verhoeven, 2003), fluency (e.g., Giacomo Dina et al.,
2016;
Saine et al., 2011), and comprehension (e.g., Savage et al.,
2009).
However, it is difficult to say if these findings about computer
games' effectiveness would generalize to a slightly younger age
group who may have only just recently mastered basic computer
operational skills like using a mouse (Calvert et al., 2005).
Most research on literacy-themed websites and computer
games has been conducted in school settings with older children
(Hurwitz, in press). However, conducting an evaluation of an
educational computer game in a classroom setting may lack
ecological validity. During early childhood, computers are
primarily

used in the classroom as a free play learning activity with little
supervision or support (Chen & Chang, 2006; Plowman &
Stephen,
2003). Further, only about 1 in 5 of classroom teachers report
having one computer per child (PBS LearningMedia, 2013), and
oftentimes those computers do not have Internet access
(Llorente,
Pasnik, Penuel, & Martin, 2010). Of those with access to any
com-
puters, approximately half of early childcare educators never
use
them for structured learning and more than 2 in 5 never use
them
for personal instruction (Blackwell, Wartella, Lauricella, &
Robb,
2015). Thus, due to technology not being fully supported in
early
childhood classrooms, it was considered more valid to examine
the
impact of learning from computer games at home. After all,
about 9
out of 10 families of young children have home computers and
high-speed Internet, and in these households, children spend
over
an hour per week on the computer (Rideout, 2017). At home,
they
receive support in using the computer from a variety of relatives
(Plowman et al., 2008). Given the prevalence and popularity of
home computer play among youth in early childhood, it is
impor-
tant to examine the impact of this time use on young children's
learning.
1.3. Current study
This study aimed to evaluate whether an RTL-funded educa-

tional website could promote learning for a diverse sample of
young children when played in the home. The website used in
the
present study, PBS KIDS Island (hereafter referred to as
Island),
featured games based on the early childhood-targeted media
properties WordWorld, Super WHY!, Between the Lions,
Sesame Street
and Martha Speaks. The Island was designed to reflect many of
the
Capacity Model, Sociocultural, and other design principles
outlined
above, and to promote early literacy in a manner aligned with
National Reading Panel (2001) recommendations. Previous
research suggests that televised versions of these properties pro -
mote concepts of print, alphabetic knowledge, phonemic aware-
ness, phonics, vocabulary, and fluency among both general and
at-
risk youth in preschool and early elementary school (Ball &
Bogatz,
1970; Linebarger, 2015; Linebarger, Kosanic, Greenwood, &
Doku,
2004; Linebarger, Moses, & McMenamin, 2010; Michael Cohen
Group, 2009). Prior to this evaluation, a pilot study was
conduct-
ed with a sample of 14 children to explore the potential for
learning
from an earlier version of the Island. It appeared as if children
could
learn from the website, but some content was edited to better
support learning and engagement.
The purpose of this study was to formally determine whether
the final version website with games based on these five media
properties and played at home could meaningfully promote
literacy

development among low- and middle-SES preschool and kinder-
garten students. Children in this age range from low- to middle-
income households may need extra literacy support prior to
school entry (Alexander et al., 2007), possess the fine motor
skills
necessary to benefit from educational computer content (Calvert
et al., 2005), and potentially be receiving complementary
lessons
from their preschool and kindergarten educators, who might be
teaching towards the same learning goals (National Literacy
Panel,
2001). We therefore predicted (Hypothesis 1) that children
would
learn early literacy skills from playing the Island. Because of
the
Capacity Model tenet about the importance of repetition (Fisch,
378e389 381
2004), we also predicted (Hypothesis 2) children who engaged
with
the website in general or games promoting specific skills most
frequently would demonstrate stronger learning outcomes.
Draw-
ing from both Capacity Model and Sociocultural research,
which
suggest that children learn more from computer games when
they
receive explicit parent support, we also predicted (Hypothesis
3)
that learning might be enhanced if parents used complementary
materials to further scaffold children's learning.
2. Method

2.1. Research design
Researchers implemented a randomized control trial with
assignment on the individual level. After pre-testing, children
were
randomly assigned for 8 weeks to play literacy-focused games
on
the Island website (RTL Group 1, n ¼ 48), to play the Island
games
and engage with additional complementary books and activities
with their parents (RTL Group 2, n ¼ 45), or to play a
commercial
website with puzzles and arts-themed games that did not focus
on
literacy (Control, n ¼ 43). Because there were no significant
differ-
ences between the two RTL groups and parents reported low use
of
the literacy support materials, we collapsed these two subgroups
in
subsequent analyses (n ¼ 93). All research activities were
approved
by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB).
2.2. Participants
A total of 136 families participated in the study. Ninety-four
children attended preschool (mean age ¼ 4.86 years, SD ¼ 0.47;
51
female) and forty-two attended kindergarten (mean age ¼ 6.09
years, SD ¼ 0.32; 20 female). Ages of child participants ranged
from
4 to 6.83 years (mean age ¼ 5.24 years, SD ¼ 0.71). The sample
included a mix of races and ethnicities, with child participants
being Caucasian (27.9%), Hispanic (27.9%), African American

(19.9%),
Asian (7.4%), and Other or Mixed (16.9%). We recruited
families
from 15 schools in a large Midwestern U.S. city. Because, as
mentioned above, RTL aims in part to provide extra support to
children from low-income backgrounds (CPB & PBS, 2011) and
because of the dire need to better understand how to support
low-
income children's literacy development (Slavin, Lake,
Chambers,
Cheung, & Davis, 2009), we made an effort to recruit from com-
munity preschools primarily serving a low-income population or
from the local public schools, where on average 84.9% of
students
are considered low income. Across the sample, the mean family
income was $56,635 ($43,932 adjusted for cost of living in the
city
where the study took place). We calculated an income-to-needs
ratio for each family using reported income, cost of living in the
city (American Chamber of Commerce Research, 2007), and
family
size. This ratio reflects family income relative to the U.S.
federal
poverty threshold. The median and mode income-to-needs ratio
was 1.29. The U.S. federal government has determined that an
income-to-needs ratio below 1.85 qualifies children for free or
reduced lunch (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), 2009); 61.8% of the
partici-
pants in our study fell below this threshold. Despite efforts to
target
low-income schools, there was variance across the sample with
the
middle 50% of income-to-needs ratio falling between 0.85 and
3.18.

Parents were diverse in terms of educational attainment. Fifteen
percent of the mothers had post-college degrees, 32% had
college
degrees, 31% percent completed some training after high school
(some college, vocational school, or an associate's degree), 14%
percent had a high school degree, and 7% had less than a high
school degree. Most parents in the study were employed full-
time
(44.9% of mothers and 71.2% of fathers). The majority of
parents
were married (75%). On average, households consisted of 4.35
people with 2.38 children. Only one child from each family
participated in the study. In the rare case in which there was
more
than one child between the ages of four and six in the
household,
the oldest eligible child was enrolled in the study, in order to
in-
crease the number of kindergarten-aged participants. All of the
participants in the study had a working laptop or desktop
computer
with high-speed Internet access at home, as that was a
requirement
for participation. In addition, children had used a computer
before
and were able to use a mouse, said letters in English, and at
least
one parent was able to read English and complete online or
phone
surveys in English. Parents reported that the majority of
children
(86.7%) were able to navigate a website at least somewhat
easily.
We required families have a laptop or desktop to ensure that all
children were accessing the same version of the website; Island
was

originally designed in Flash and not all components were
compatible with all tablet computer operating systems. We also
required this mastery of English because the RTL website was
in
English, and pilot research suggested that children who knew
few
letters in English found the site too difficult and quickly lost in-
terest. Although parent support materials describing the Island
are
available on the site in Spanish, the actual environme nt and
games
are presented in written and spoken English.
We dropped an additional 24 families after the beginning of the
study. Reasons included: did not use the website or played a
few
games and then stopped (n ¼ 9), parents failed to complete
surveys
(n ¼ 7), computer no longer working (n ¼ 5), left school prior
to the
post-test phase (n ¼ 1), or did not want their child to use the
computer/withdrew use as a form of punishment (n ¼ 2).
Dropped
participants had fewer adults at home (t (156) ¼ -2.91, p < .01)
and
lower household incomes (t (155) ¼ �2.89, p < .01), but did not
differ from study families in terms of any other demographic
characteristics (i.e., gender, grade, ethnicity, employment
status,
parental education, and number of children).
2.3. Stimuli website
Children in the RTL group played PBS KIDS Island (Island), a
website embedded with games created by PBS with support
from

the U.S. Department of Education's RTL initiative. The website
and
its games are directed toward children four-to six-years-old and
aims to teach language and literacy skills aligned with recom-
mendations from the National Reading Panel (2000). As
mentioned
previously, the game characters are drawn from five PBS RTL-
funded properties targeting the same age group: WordWorl d,
Su-
per WHY!, Between the Lions, Sesame Street, and Martha
Speaks.
The Island allows children to build their own island amusement
park by playing games that support literacy skills as well as
games
that support general cognitive skills. The games on the Island
work
on alphabetic knowledge (including letter identification and
letter
sequencing), phonemic awareness (including rhyming and
alliter-
ation), phonics, vocabulary, and reading.
There is a structured path through these games; children need
to complete four games on one skill level before four games of
the
next level with more advanced literacy content become
available in
the form of new “amusement park rides” (initially, unavailable
rides have "under construction" signs and are not clickable).
After
playing all four games on the first level and then each of the
four
games on the next level, children continue to earn rides, until
they
complete eight levels. Games in higher levels present

progressively
more challenging learning content, with some concepts repeated
across multiple levels. For example, on levels 1 and 2 children
can
practice identifying letters and enhancing alphabet knowledge
in a
bingo game. Levels 4 to 6 promote more advanced phonemic
awareness skills with different rhyming games, as well as games
Table 1
Pretest and posttest means and standard deviations by condition
for effects of website use on literacy outcomes.
N Control Intervention
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
Uppercase letter knowledge 136 22.93 (5.6) 23.33 (5.29) 23.04
(6.01) 24.04 (4.52)
Uppercase letter naming fluency 134 3.27 (4.95) 1.70 (0.87)
3.19 (5.73) 1.53 (0.71)
Lowercase letter knowledge* 134 20.79 (6.70) 20.74 (7.77)
20.80 (7.68) 21.89 (6.68)
Lowercase letter naming fluency 123 3.69 (3.76) 3.30 (3.37)
3.43 (4.35) 2.55 (2.50)
Letter sound awareness* 128 12.72 (9.29) 14.28 (7.69) 14.69
(8.90) 17.70 (7.49)
Letter sound fluency** 108 7.35 (4.65) 5.98 (4.29) 6.13 (4.80)
4.02 (3.25)
Letter sequencing* 135 6.05 (1.93) 6.07 (2.10) 6.00 (1.90) 6.88
…
General guidelines for writing reaction papers
(Read this document fully! It’s 5 pages and contains important

information):
Reaction papers are thought papers where you critique an
article. As you read the assigned articles, point out 1) at least
one interesting fact that you learned from the introduction, 2)
study’s strengths, 3) the limitations of their research design (for
example, the way they defined or measured their variables, the
measures’ reliability/validity, their data collection technique
[e.g., self-report, lab visits, direct observation]), 4) implications
of their findings (so what do they findings mean in real world!.
In your implications section you must relate the study’s findings
to real life, and give it some context to make it relevant for lay
people), 5) future direction ideas (what would you want to test
next to build up on the findings of this research, and/or to
address its shortcomings).
These are some questions to have in mind as you read the
article:
· Did they account for confounding factors?
· What other factors could explain their findings?
· Were the findings substantial? Who will benefit from these?
· What were some of the considerations or little things that the
researchers took into account that strengthened their design?
· If you were to do subsequent investigations, what next steps
would you take?
· Also, if the article posed questions in your mind, mention the
questions and take a stab at giving answers too!
Show me that you’ve thought the article thorough. I evaluate
your reaction papers based on thedepth of your thoughts and
how sophisticated and well explained your arguments comments
are.
SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE regarding LIMITATIONS:
When pointing out the limitations, EXPLAIN how addressing
the limitation could mean getting different results. For example,
if the study’s participants are all socioeconomically advantaged
and you see this a limitation because it’s not nationally

representative, discuss how results of a mid/low SES sample
could be different. Simply saying that the results aren’t
“generalizable” IS NOT ENOUGH. You must justify your
argument for selecting a more diverse sample, otherwise there is
not enough evidence to suggest that the study’s findings are not
generalizable! Again, please realize that it is your explanations
and arguments that I evaluate, so don’t leave your comments
unexplained or unsupported.
SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE regarding STRENGHTS:
I have found that students are often confused as to what they
should consider a “strength” and what things are just “given
(must haves!)” in a work that is published in an academic
journal. Below are things that are NOT strengths, and rather
“given”, so please don’t include these as strengths of the
article! Violation of these can be considered a limitation:
· Random assignment
· Having conditions that differ on only one aspect
· Coders being blind to the study’s hypotheses
· Use of reliable and valid measures
· Citing relevant prior research
· High inter-rater reliability
· Having IRB approval
· Getting a baseline to compare post-intervention results with
To identify strengths, think about what steps the researchers
took into account for possible little things that could skew their
results. For instance, having “practice trials” before engaging
kids in a computer game, to account for differences in
familiarity with the game, device, etc. These are extra steps,
and thoughtful ones, that researchers take, and are considered
true strengths.
One more thing, in your reaction paper, refrain from statements
such as “the paper was great”, “I liked this finding”, “I thought
this finding was interesting”, without explaining why!! It’s okay
to like the study, but it’s important to reason why you found the
article interesting and important. Also, even if you really liked
the paper, you must still be able to able to play the role of a

sceptic and find few points to criticize the paper on. Your
comments must be deep and critical rather than superficial or
simply a reiteration of what was mentioned in the article.
Organization and Structure:
Start by summarizing the article in one very short paragraph
(NO more than 3-4 lines)! And then continue critiquing the
article. Reaction papers must be 2-3 pages. Note that most
students can’t write a thorough reaction paper in 2 pages, unless
they are true “concise writers”, so don’t stop at two pages,
unless you’ve touched on several key points about the article
(and don’t repeat the points you already mentioned, just to
cover a third page!). Be sure to cover the five main key parts
that were mentioned in the first paragraph, and know that your
focus should be on limitations.
Formatting:
· WORD DOC only! No PDFs please.
· Times New Roman font, 12 point, Double spaced, 1” margin
all sides.
· No cover page needed
· Citation of the assigned paper not needed. Any extra sources
must be cited
· APA style of writing
· Submit your paper on canvas by the due date
· I will accept reaction papers only if they’re submitted before
class time, AND if you are present in class to discuss your
paper. If you absolutely have to miss a class where we’re
discussing articles, you can make up the reaction paper by
choosing an article on the topic of the week and write a reaction
paper on the new article. Email me your reaction paper and the
article PDF. You may earn a maximum of 40 points (instead of
the typical 50 points) for this reaction paper. Only ONE
reaction paper can be made up this way. So if you miss more
than one article discussion day, I can’t give you the option to
make it up again.
· Note that on the week when you are the presenting group, you
will submit a single reaction paper collectively as a group. The

organizer should upload this reaction paper (under his/her
name) and the rest of group members don’t have to worry about
uploading anything.
REACTION PAPER GRADING RUBRIC
Performance category
Quality
Content (30 pts)
Organization(10 pts)
Grammar (10 pts); Correct choice of verb tenses, words,
avoidance of wordy phrases)
Exceeds expectations
Offers several high quality comments about the reading that
demonstrate a high level of understanding as well as
sophisticated analysis of the material. Embodies originality,
complexity, and depth, rather than just a presentation of the
obvious; shows evidence of effective inquiry and
argumentation. Clearly shows evidence of “Critical” thinking
Points: 25-30
Is stellar in construction, with compelling wording, smooth
transitions, and organizational clarity.
Points: 10
No errors whatsoever!
Points: 10
Meets expectations
Demonstrates a good level of understanding and raises many
points, but only one or none of the points demonstrate “deep”
analysis where KEY factors are discussed (i.e., sticks to
discussion of the obvious, like sample size and
generalizability). All or most of the points that are rai sed are
accurate
Points: 15-25
Language is generally appropriate to a professional audience
and organization is sound.

Points: 6-9
Between 1-4 grammatical or punctuation errors, or typos, but
they are minor and do not detract from the paper.
Points: 6-9
Needs improvement
Offers few comments, and they are superficial. Some comments
have accuracy issues (e.g., invalid criticisms, or discussion of a
limitation that was addressed in the paper by taking a specific
measure that resolved the issue completely).
Points: 5-15
Quality of writing may be inconsistent (i.e., quite good in some
sections of the paper and of lesser quality in other sections.
E.g., there are paragraphs containing critiquing points after
what seems to be a concluding paragraph); organization needs
improvement.
Points: 3-6
4-7 grammatical or punctuation errors, or typos.
Points: 3-6
Unsatisfactory
Sounds more like a summary than an analysis. Offers only one
or two comments which are on the superficial side.
Points: 0-5
Paper is incoherent, or unorganized with little agreement
between ideas.
Points: 0-3
More than 7 grammatical, punctuation errors or typos. Errors
impede understanding of content and require multiple readings
and guessing to figure out the message that’s being conveyed.
Points: 3-6

lable at ScienceDirectComputers in Human Behavior 81 (2018

lable at ScienceDirectComputers in Human Behavior 81 (2018

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to lable at ScienceDirectComputers in Human Behavior 81 (2018

Similar to lable at ScienceDirectComputers in Human Behavior 81 (2018 (20)

More from JospehStull43

More from JospehStull43 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

lable at ScienceDirectComputers in Human Behavior 81 (2018